AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.N. Phaneendra, J.—The petitioners herein have sought for quashing of charge sheet in Crime No. 18/2010 (PC 04/2010) pending before the Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) and JMFC, Siruguppa or in the alternative to keep the said case in abeyance till the disposal of OS. No. 96/2010 pending before the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.) at Bellary. The brief facts that emanate from the records are that, the respondent No. 1 herein-Smt. Y. Nagarathnamma filed a private complaint in No. 4/2010 against these petitioners for the offences punishable u/s 419, 420, 468 and 471 r/w 149 of I.P.C. making the allegations that the accused persons/petitioners being the residents of Siruguppa on 03.09.2009 with a common intention to cheat the respondent No. 1 fraudulently and dishonestly created a forged registered General Power of Attorney by impersonating as respondent No. 1, as if executed a General Power of Attorney dated 03.09.2009. Again, on the basis of the said General Power of Attorney, the petitioner No. 1 has executed a Registered Sale Deed dated 19.12.2009 in favour of the petitioner No. 3 who is no other than the younger sister of petitioner No. 1. It is an undisputed fact that after the respondent No. 1 started questioning the illegal acts of the petitioners on the ground that those documents are forged, the petitioners themselves get cancelled the said registered General Power of Attorney and also registered sale deed. It is also narrated in the complaint that the said General Power of Attorney and also the sale deed were forged by the petitioners with an intention to cause wrongful loss to the complainant and also to have wrongful gain to them, the said acts were done with an ulterior motive to impersonated the respondent No 1 herein in order to grab the valuable property of the 1st respondent. Making such allegations the respondent No. 1 has filed the complaint. The said complaint was referred to the jurisdictional Police for investigation and report. The Police have registered the FIR in No. 18/2010 on 02.02.2010 and investigated the matter. Thereafter, Police have submitted a detailed charge sheet before the Court for the offences u/s 419, 420, 468, 471 r/w 34 of IPC. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance after going through in detail the charge sheet papers and issued process against the petitioners. Against that, the present petition is filed.
Apart from the above, the factual aspects also disclose that subsequent to the cancellation of the General Power of Attorney and also the sale deed, the petitioners have also claiming that earlier to 2009 also the respondent No. 1 had executed a General Power of Attorney on 05.05.1997 in favour of petitioner No. 1. On the basis of the said GPA once again the petitioner-No. 1 has executed another sale deed in favour of petitioner No. 3 on 05.03.2010. Again being aggrieved by the conduct of the petitioners herein, the respondent No. 1 has filed a suit in O.S. No. 96/2010 before the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.), Bellary seeking declaration that the document dated 05.03.2010 is non-est in the eye of law and also the General Power of Attorney dated 05.05.1997 is also null and void and all consequential transactions are null and void. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have also filed a suit for permanent injunction against the 1st respondent in O.S. No. 38/2012.
Looking to the above said facts and circumstances, the conduct of the petitioners in approaching this Court, in my opinion, is unpleasant because of the simple reason, in the petition and as well as at the time of arguments, it could be observed that the alleged General Power of Attorney executed by 1st respondent in favour of the petitioner No. 1 dated 03.09.2009 and also on the basis of the said General Power of Attorney, the sale deed executed by petitioner No. 1 in favour of petitioner No. 3 dated 19.12.2009 were cancelled by the petitioners themselves. It is a very strange situation where, a person who secured the General Power of Attorney and on the basis of which he executes a sale deed, he himself cancels those documents as not genuine. Further, he sets up a situation that even prior to 2009 that was in the year 1997 itself the respondent No. 1 had executed a General Power of Attorney. On that basis he again executes a sale deed in favour of petitioner No. 3. If at all the General Power of Attorney was there in the year 1997 itself it goes unexplained by the petitioners that why they got executed from respondent No. 1 another General Power of Attorney in the year 2009 and after coming to know that the respondent No. 1 has started legal proceedings against them, they cancelled the said General Power of Attorney and as well as the sale deed. Therefore, if possible to hush up their alleged illegal acts, perhaps they might have filed a civil suit against the respondent No. 1 herein. The suit filed by the respondent No. 1 for declaration with reference to the General Power of Attorney alleged to have been executed in the year 1997 will no way come in the way of investigation and trial of the accused persons pertaining to the alleged concocted General Power of Attorney and sale deed in the year 2009 as stated above.
Having unsuccessful in their activities with reference to the above said General Power of Attorney and sale deed, they perhaps if possible they want to get rid off those proceedings by means of getting stay order at the hands of this Court. This in fact should be curbed by the Courts by imposing heavy costs on the petitioners. It is worth to note a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Another, wherein the Apex Court has said that:
Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie.
Looking to the above said factual aspects and the investigation process done by the Police, it shows that the Police have in detail dealt with the matter and submitted the charge sheet before the Court. Therefore, in my opinion, the petitioners without any grounds have tapped the doors of this Court if possible to cover up the allegations made against them. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed on cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The said cost amount of Rs. 5,000/-shall be paid to the "High Court Library Fund, Dharwad". Any observations made in this particular petition is only pertaining to this petition, it should not persuade any Court either in the Civil proceedings or in the criminal proceedings to draw any inference against the petitioners.
The cost shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order.